Jaimes v. Arellano

2024 UT App 112

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

LETICIA JAIMES AND FRANCISCO JAIMES,
Appellants,
v.
FRANCISCO ARELLANO-MEDINA,
Appellee.

Opinion
No. 20220959-CA
Filed August 8, 2024

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Adam T. Mow
No. 190907680

Brandon C. Stone, Attorney for Appellants
Joseph J. Joyce, Bryan J. Stoddard, and Blake A.
Hallock, Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion,
in which JUDGES RYAN M. HARRIS and JOHN D. LUTHY concurred.

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 This case arose when Francisco Arellano-Medina (Father)
caused a minor car accident while his wife, Leticia Jaimes
(Mother), and son, Francisco Jaimes (Son), were passengers in the
car. After the accident, Mother and Son (collectively, Plaintiffs)
sued Father to recover damages for alleged injuries stemming
from the accident. Before and at trial, the court denied Plaintiffs’
requests that they be allowed to explain to the jury that they
delayed seeking medical treatment after the accident because
their automobile insurer initially denied their claim. The jury
returned a no-cause verdict in favor of Father, and Plaintiffs
appeal the court’s evidentiary ruling. Because the court did not
exceed its discretion in excluding the auto insurance evidence, we
affirm.
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

BACKGROUND

¶2 On the morning of September 28, 2018, Father was driving
the family car to take Mother to work and Son to school. In his
haste, Father backed into the garage door of their home before it
had fully opened, resulting in minor damage to the car’s trunk lid
and a partially broken rear spoiler. The car’s airbags did not
deploy, as the car was moving only “2 to 3 miles per hour” at the
time it hit the garage door. The damage to the car was estimated
to cost less than $1,200 to repair.

¶3 Following the accident, Plaintiffs sought out chiropractic
treatment for their injuries but only after a thirty-nine-day delay.
The family maintained auto insurance through State Farm
Insurance Company (State Farm), which initially denied that
Plaintiffs were entitled to personal injury protection benefits
under their policy. However, State Farm reversed its initial
coverage determination, and thereafter Plaintiffs began
chiropractic treatment paid for by State Farm.

¶4 While Father admitted responsibility for causing the
accident, the parties disputed whether Plaintiffs were injured in
the accident and what damages Father was responsible for as a
result. Eventually, Plaintiffs filed suit against Father to recover
damages from the accident. 1

¶5 Leading up to trial, Plaintiffs argued that they should be
allowed to explain their delay in seeking medical treatment for
their injuries by discussing the “auto insurance involvement in
this case.” Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that they should be
“allowed to discuss State Farm’s initial denial and later admitting
of coverage.” Plaintiffs explained that they did “not plan and

1. On appeal, Plaintiffs claim that Father was only a nominal
defendant in the case because he did not dispute liability and is
the husband of Mother and the father of Son. They argue that State
Farm is the real party in interest for the defense in this matter.

20220959-CA 2 2024 UT App 112
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

[were] not requesting that they be allowed to go into a lot of detail
regarding the nuances of [the] insurance coverage.” Rather, “[i]t
would be sufficient simply to state that State Farm . . . was
involved, that State Farm initially told Plaintiffs that there was no
coverage available but later changed its position and indicated
that there was, that Plaintiffs were unable to afford chiropractic
treatment on their own, and that [was] the reason for the delay in
treatment.” Plaintiffs did not ask, however, that they be allowed
to explain the treatment gap in a more general way by explaining
simply that they did not have insurance coverage at first but did
have it later. The defense opposed the motion, arguing that the
delay in seeking medical treatment was highly relevant evidence
because it suggested a “lack of severe symptoms or real injury.”
The defense also asserted that under Utah’s evidentiary rules,
mentioning “State Farm . . . (or any insurance) to the jury in any
way” would be improper and inflammatory.

¶6 At the final pretrial conference, the court heard argument
on Plaintiffs’ request to explain to the jury the reason for the
delayed treatment. Plaintiffs asserted they should be allowed to
explain that “State Farm initially denied coverage and then later
admitted that there was . . . coverage.” In the alternative, Plaintiffs
argued that the court could exclude evidence of delay in treatment
altogether or instruct the jury that “the fact there is insurance
coverage does not mean that [Father] is liable.” The defense
responded that while Plaintiffs were allowed to explain that they
did not have the ability to pay for treatment right away, they
should not be allowed to mention auto insurance.

¶7 The court denied Plaintiffs’ request and determined that
while the parties could discuss the treatment delay and Plaintiffs
could argue that they were unable to afford treatment right after
the accident, they would not be allowed to testify specifically that
State Farm’s initial denial of personal injury protection benefits
was the reason they delayed seeking treatment. The court gave
three reasons for its ruling: (1) the reason for the delay was a

20220959-CA 3 2024 UT App 112
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

factual determination to be made by the jury; (2) rule 411 of the
Utah Rules of Evidence generally bars evidence that a person was
or was not insured; and (3) if told that the cost of treatment was
the problem, the jury could come up with valid reasons on its own
that Plaintiffs would not have been able to afford the medical
treatment right after the accident but could then later pay for it.
The court also ruled that under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of
Evidence, Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking treatment was “highly
probative as to the extent and seriousness of the alleged injuries”
but raising the issue of insurance coverage posed a substantial risk
of unfair prejudice. See generally Utah R. Evid. 403 (“The court may
exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”).
The court did state that if, at trial, the defense pushed the issue “to
the extent that there is no other reasonable explanation” given for
why Plaintiffs could later afford care, the court “may allow the
insurance issue to be raised.” But the court cautioned that
“discussing coverage determinations risks the jury . . . attaching
too much to the fact that there is insurance,” and it emphasized
that it did not “want any mention of insurance, . . . whether it’s
State Farm or mentioned generally.”

¶8 At trial, in his opening statement, counsel for Plaintiffs
stated that Plaintiffs had neck and back pain following the
accident. Counsel explained that Plaintiffs “waited a while” to get
treatment because “they were worried about the cost of getting
treatment” and because “[t]hey were hoping that the pain would
go away on its own. It didn’t. In fact, it got worse over time. So
finally they went to a chiropractor.” Plaintiffs testified about the
accident and their alleged injuries. Mother said she felt pain in her
back and neck after the accident, and the pain got worse before
she went to see the chiropractor. Son testified that he started to
feel back and neck pain a few hours after the accident, and that
pain lasted a few months until he obtained chiropractic treatment.

20220959-CA 4 2024 UT App 112
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

Neither Mother nor Son specifically addressed the thirty-nine-day
delay in seeking treatment. But during cross-examination, Mother
acknowledged that she had previously testified, in her deposition,
that her pain had not worsened between the time of the accident
and her first chiropractic appointment. Mother also
acknowledged that she had been involved in two prior car
accidents that had caused injuries to her neck and back. Mother
testified that on those previous occasions she had received
treatment from the same chiropractor she saw after this accident
and thereafter filed personal injury claims seeking compensation.

¶9 Plaintiffs called as an expert witness their treating
chiropractor, who opined that Mother and Son were injured in the
accident, and he also testified as to the cost of the treatment he
provided. After the cross-examination of the expert and outside
the presence of the jury, Plaintiffs argued that defense counsel’s
questioning had opened the door to further discussion of why
they had waited to seek medical care after the accident. Plaintiffs
alleged that defense counsel had asked questions that zeroed in
on the treatment gap being “unusual” and that the questions had
an effect on “causation.” For example, defense counsel had asked
the expert whether a patient’s delay in seeking treatment would
“affect whether [he would] give them treatment in the moment”
and whether “some delay between . . . an accident . . . and then
[the patient] coming in to seek treatment” would “matter to [him]
as far as treatment.” Based on these questions, Plaintiffs’ counsel
asked that he be allowed to “reopen [the] motion to be able to . . .
discuss the reason for [the] gap in treatment and the . . . denial of
insurance coverage during that time.” But defense counsel
“disagree[d] with” Plaintiffs’ counsel’s “characterization of what
[his] questions were,” asserting that he was “pretty careful” to
avoid asking about the treatment gap “affect[ing] [the expert’s]
opinion on causation” and instead “limit[ed] it to the fact that
there was a gap and that [the expert] would treat [Plaintiffs]
regardless of how long they waited.” The court denied the
motion, stating: “I’m still at the same place where we originally

20220959-CA 5 2024 UT App 112
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

discussed that motion . . . [and] we’re not going to get into the
insurance discussion.”

¶10 The main focus of the defense case was that the force of the
auto accident was not sufficient to injure Plaintiffs. The defense
called as a witness a biomechanical expert, who testified that
according to his calculations, the parties’ vehicle was traveling
two to three miles per hour at the time it hit the garage door and
opined that the potential for injury under those facts was very
low. The defense also called its own medical expert, who
conducted physical examinations of Mother and Son and
reviewed their medical records. The defense medical expert
opined that he found no credible evidence of injury being
incurred by either Mother or Son.

¶11 The jury determined that Father’s fault did not cause any
injuries to Plaintiffs, and the court then entered a judgment in
favor of Father of no cause of action.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶12 Plaintiffs now appeal and assert that the court abused its
discretion when it excluded auto insurance coverage evidence
while permitting the jury to hear that Plaintiffs waited thirty-nine
days before seeking chiropractic treatment following the accident.
A trial court is afforded broad discretion to admit or exclude
evidence, and we will disturb its ruling only for an abuse of
discretion. Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51, ¶ 21, 190 P.3d 1269. In
reviewing for an abuse of discretion, “we will not reverse a trial
court’s ruling on evidence unless the ruling was beyond the limits
of reasonability.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also Anderson v.
Larry H. Miller Commc’ns Corp., 2015 UT App 134, ¶ 17, 351 P.3d
832.

20220959-CA 6 2024 UT App 112
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

ANALYSIS

¶13 Plaintiffs challenge the court’s evidentiary ruling
forbidding them from testifying that the reason they waited
thirty-nine days after the accident to seek chiropractic treatment
was that their auto insurer, State Farm, initially denied them no-
fault personal injury protection benefits. Though the parties and
the court all agreed that the delay in treatment was a relevant
issue at trial, the court barred Plaintiffs from specifically
explaining to the jury that State Farm’s initial denial of personal
injury protection benefits was why they could not pay for the
chiropractic care right after the accident. In its ruling excluding
this evidence, the court undertook a balancing analysis under rule
403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence and determined that though the
evidence was potentially relevant, the defense would be
substantially prejudiced by its admission because “discussing
coverage determinations risks the jury . . . attaching too much to
the fact that there is insurance, which rule 411 [of the Utah Rules
of Evidence] bars.” 2

2. While the court correctly stated that rule 411 of the Utah Rules
of Evidence generally prevents the admission of “[e]vidence that
a person was or was not insured against liability . . . to prove
whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully,”
application of that rule does not necessarily compel the exclusion
of the evidence here. Rule 411 allows the admission of evidence of
liability insurance for purposes other than proving the negligence
of a defendant. See, e.g., Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLC,
2009 UT 66, ¶ 37, 221 P.3d 256 (“Utah Rule of Evidence 411
prohibits evidence of liability insurance to show that a person
acted negligently but allows evidence of liability coverage to
show a witness is biased or prejudiced.”). And Plaintiffs argue
they did not seek to admit the explanation for the treatment delay
as evidence of Father’s negligence but, instead, as evidence of the
reason for their thirty-nine-day delay in seeking treatment.

20220959-CA 7 2024 UT App 112
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

¶14 Under rule 403, we generally defer to the trial court’s
assessment of whether the probative value of the evidence is
substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice. See
Glacier Land Co. v. Claudia Klawe & Assocs., 2006 UT App 516, ¶ 24,
154 P.3d 852 (“[T]he trial court is granted broad discretion when
weighing the probative value of evidence against the reasons for
exclusion enumerated in rule 403.”), cert. denied, 168 P.3d 819
(Utah 2007). As recognized by the court here, the reason Plaintiffs
delayed seeking medical treatment had probative value, but we
cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying
the specific request Plaintiffs made, namely, that they be allowed
to testify that “State Farm initially denied coverage and then later
admitted that there was . . . coverage.” The court correctly
observed that injecting the issue of auto insurance coverage into
the case—and naming State Farm specifically—risked confusion
of the issues and prejudice to the defense.

¶15 Importantly, at no time over the course of the litigation did
Plaintiffs narrow their request and ask the court that they be
allowed to explain their delay in seeking treatment without
mentioning State Farm or even auto insurance. For example,
Plaintiffs could have requested the ability to more generally and
simply testify that they did not seek treatment right away because
they did not have insurance—which could conceivably refer to
either health insurance or auto insurance coverage—and could
not otherwise afford the treatment right after the accident. Based
on the requests made to the court, Plaintiffs sought to specifically
mention only State Farm and its initial coverage decision. While
the court could have, and probably should have, allowed
Plaintiffs to explain the gap in seeking treatment in more general
insurance-based terms, absent a specific request from Plaintiffs,
the court was under no obligation to come up with such a solution
on its own. And as we fail to perceive that the court’s decision to
deny Plaintiffs’ specific request “was beyond the limits of
reasonability,” Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51, ¶ 21, 190 P.3d 1269

20220959-CA 8 2024 UT App 112
Jaimes v. Arellano-Medina

(quotation simplified), we conclude there was no abuse of
discretion in this case.

CONCLUSION

¶16 The court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Plaintiffs’ specific request to testify that the reason for their thirty-
nine-day delay in seeking treatment was State Farm’s initial
denial of their auto insurance claim.

¶17 Affirmed.

20220959-CA 9 2024 UT App 112